Security Council meeting 4257-Resu.1

Mr. Cunningham (United States)

Mr. President, we want to welcome you to the Council and to give Singapore its due for having taken the initiative to organize and convene this discussion, which I found very interesting this morning, as, I am sure, did my colleagues.

I have taken heed of the suggestion that we take advantage of the lunch period to think about some of the items that were broached this morning by the troop contributors who spoke. There were a lot of recommendations and a lot of thoughts advanced. As the paper the presidency produced points out, there is already a long history of decisions in regard to the question of how consultations between the Security Council and the troop contributors should be organized. It is obvious -- and I do not think this is a question of ill will on anybody's part; in fact, I am quite sure it is not -- that the situation is still not satisfactory, as has been made clear repeatedly over the years and was made perfectly clear this morning.

Let me add that the situation is not satisfactory from our point of view, either. We have given lots of thought to the need to improve the exchange of information. The members of the Security Council need, and the United Nations as a whole needs, stronger cooperation between the troop-contributing countries and the Security Council and, I would add, between the Secretary-General and the Secretariat. We have at least three major actors here, not just two.

I think our shared goal, as it came out this morning as well, is that we want to make the operations of peacekeeping more effective and more efficient. To do that, we need a real partnership, and that requires somewhat of a change in mentality, I think, as some of the speakers noted this morning. We need the troop contributors, the Security Council and the Secretary-General to look at each other as partners in a common endeavour with a common purpose.

I want to recall Ambassador Heinbecker's exhortation this morning about integrating authority with risk. I think that is a very good way to look at the issue. This requires input, will and commitment from each participant in this partnership to make it work better. That means meaningful and active participation, thought and some consideration for the other partners. It does not necessarily mean new mechanisms as such. We have lots of mechanisms and there are lots of ideas that have been floated and tried in the past. We can have regular meeting upon meeting upon meeting in various orders and sequences, but they risk becoming, as at least one speaker said this morning, ritualistic if we do not put the proper content and spirit into them.

I also want to note -- in connection with those who spoke about the effectiveness of United Nations operations and the need to ensure the security of peacekeeping operations -- that the United States remains the largest contributor of United Nations civilian police, with well over 800 personnel deployed to United Nations peacekeeping operations. Therefore we are more than sympathetic with the concerns of troop contributors for the safety of their personnel.

The bottom line here is that we should all want the means of exchange that works, that informs the troop contributors adequately and on a timely basis, that really provides input to Security Council decision-making, that improves implementation and improves the clarity of mandates and, at the end of the day, that produces clearer goals and better performance. This will require meaningful, interactive exchanges among the troop contributors, the Secretariat and the Security Council. A good example -- the best one that I have seen so far and one that others have also cited this morning -- was the series of meetings that we had in connection with the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) this fall and the Security Council mission that visited UNAMSIL, where we had good informal and informed exchanges that really did fit the parameters that I have just been discussing.

My delegation is open to new ideas to build a better process and to overcome inertia. Our other overriding concern has to be that Security Council efficiency and fulfilment of responsibilities is maintained, as is set out under the Charter. Several people spoke about that also this morning. We would not think it wise to blur the responsibilities of the participants in this partnership or to hinder Council decision-making. We are confident that we can improve on this partnership without doing so.

We can use existing mechanisms. We can find ways to have more interactive exchanges between the troop contributors, the Secretariat and the Security Council. The troop contributors should take the initiative when they feel it appropriate, or when an individual troop contributor, for that matter, feels the need to so do. In that regard, I applaud the Deputy Secretary-General's comments this morning about her openness, and that of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, in that regard. That is the right attitude, and it should be taken advantage of.

We have accomplished a great deal in the past six months with the Brahimi report and follow-up to strengthen the Department of Peacekeeping Operations as well as United Nations peacekeeping operations. We need to continue that effort, since this work is at the heart of providing real capabilities to the problems we have been discussing. We should work to make Security Council resolution 1327 (2000) a reality. It contains good ideas and good intentions, and we need to work to bring them into being. I want also to echo the suggestion of the representative of Pakistan and others that, as we are going through this effort, we take a look at the resources of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, not only to make sure that it has the resources it needs for mounting an operation but also the resources required to conduct effective liaison with the Security Council and the troop contributors.

My delegation is willing to look at new ideas to bolster this process, but as I have stated, we do not confuse mechanisms and more meetings with substance, cooperation and partnership. We all know the problem; it has been around for a while. We are willing to work very hard to address it, and we suggest that we proceed to do so without further delay.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom)

Mr. President, it is very good to see you in the chair today. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your delegation's very imaginative approach to this debate. I also would like to thank the Deputy Secretary-General for her statement, which set us off to a good start.

The Permanent Representative of Sweden spoke this morning on behalf of the European Union, and what he said reflected the United Kingdom's views on the fundamental points of this issue. But I would like to say a few words from our own perspective as a Council member and as a regular and major contributor to peacekeeping in one form or another. I would also like to react to some of the interesting and substantive interventions of troop contributors this morning, which set out a number of points that we will have to take into account.

It was a good idea to have this debate in this format. As we in the Security Council, and others in the wider United Nations system, grapple with making peacekeeping operations work better, one thing has become clear. We -- that is, the Council and the Secretariat -- need a comprehensive approach to peacekeeping that looks at reform in a cohesive way and raises the professional capability of the United Nations effort across the board. Our key partners in that must be the troop contributors. I very much agree with Ambassador Cunningham's accent on partnership.

The non-paper that your delegation, Mr President, circulated before this debate acknowledged that this is not a new subject. But it has resurfaced with force in recent months. Some of the contributors to the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) spoke this morning about their particular experiences of that operation. The points of criticism are perhaps not quite so clear cut as has sometimes been suggested, but we must take careful note of what they have said. The Brahimi report also pointed out the need to involve troop contributors in our work in a much more systematic way.

The truth is that peacekeeping operations in 2001 face much more complex challenges than the mechanisms we have so far put in place can meet. The nature of conflict has changed. National contingents have harder work to do in securing peace in situations where the parties to a conflict can be difficult to identify and where their commitment to peace is all too often ambivalent, or worse. Contingents have been given new and tougher tasks in ever more complicated situations, where the political problems are not necessarily solved by a force deployment or a peace agreement.

We should be clear that the benefits of a more proactive approach to cooperation are not merely to be found in building a better relationship with contributors, important though that may be. Driving for more effective peacekeeping operations means ensuring that contributors know what to expect in both general and specific terms. Better and more regular consultations will ensure that national contingents do not arrive in theatre unprepared or unequipped for the mission that the Council expects them to fulfil. They should mean a more cohesive operation, with all contributors clear about the goals that the Security Council has set. And they will help to ensure that the resolutions we adopt will not be paper tigers, fruitless in practice because the necessary contributions cannot be found for a mandate that is over-ambitious.

Everybody recognizes that the arrangements we have had for cooperation with troop contributors in the past have not worked properly. The standard meetings have too frequently been desultory affairs, with little or no exchange of views, though the fault for that is not necessarily only on one side. We need to know how current or potential contributors feel about the decisions we are planning to take. They need to be able to comment on the Secretariat's and the Council's analysis of the situation. For instance, what information might they have from their contingents on the ground that would impact on our considerations? We need to explain better to them the specific concerns that are driving our work. The aim is, as the European Union statement says, greater transparency throughout all the phases of a peacekeeping operation.

That is not to say that the Security Council should devolve its Charter duties. The troop contributors are not contesting, I think, that the Council makes its own decisions, in line with its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. But we must do so on the basis of the widest possible consultation. Our decisions have to be right, and the implementation of them has to be quick and effective. No national defence system, and no large corporation, would separate out its decision-making and its operational processes to the extent that the United Nations has done up to now.

We also need to bear in mind that Security Council consultations with troop contributors cannot cover all of the ground. Informal consultation between troop-contributing countries (TCCs) and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations will remain critical to the task of preparing and sustaining effective peacekeeping operations. As the European Union statement made clear, this will require decisive action to give the Secretariat the capacity it needs to do the job. While the new posts endorsed by the Fifth Committee before Christmas are a good start, we need to take further steps to improve the planning capacity of the Organization, the military and the civilian police. A proper flow of information to the troop contributors means ensuring that the Secretariat has a proper analytical capacity. We need to revisit the concept of an Information and Strategic Analysis Secretariat, or EISAS, which was contained in the Brahimi report.

Resolution 1327 (2000) gave us a good framework for all this work. Holding a private meeting at key stages of the consideration of new or evolving mandates will help. But new procedures are only half the story. We also need a step change in our attitudes. We in the Council, the Secretariat and the troop contributors have a shared responsibility to make those consultations productive: to exchange views in a frank and forthright manner and to listen to what others have to say.

When I spoke at the Council debate on "No exit without strategy" on 15 November, I suggested forming a working group of the Council to look at generic peacekeeping issues. I think it is now time to move to a decision on this idea, which will provide the Council with a new instrument to increase the effectiveness of its work in this area, while respecting the prerogatives of the General Assembly.

A working group would bring cohesion to the way the Council handles peacekeeping, currently all too often dealt in an ad hoc way in piecemeal discussion or through thematic debates. It would allow us to take a step back from time to time and examine the overall trends in our work on peacekeeping, learning lessons where we can. It could examine in depth particular issues causing problems. It would also help us to look carefully at our working methods. We need to be sure that we are getting the best military advice and that our own decisions are militarily sound. A working group would give us the machinery to address that issue. It might also play a role in establishing a more direct and proactive relationship with the troop contributors, who could perhaps think of forming a corresponding grouping for each main operation.

Neither should such a working group shy away from the difficult questions that United Nations peacekeeping must face if it is to become a truly professional force for international peace and security. These could include questions such as the increasingly robust nature of modern peacekeeping and -- another issue I raised in the November open debate -- the reasons why modern hi-tech armies may be unwilling to put themselves under United Nations command and control. These are not easy questions to address and we will not always agree, but a frank and open discussion would help. Above all, it would help us to see beyond the frequent assumption that political attitudes are always the problem, when there are often concrete and resolvable difficulties that should be addressed.

I look forward to your summing up of this debate, Mr. President. It is clear from what we heard from the troop contributors this morning that we have food for thought and a need for pragmatic change. Where there are substantive ideas for progress that can find consensus, we should move to decisions quickly, but we should be clear that what is required is as much a change of approach as a change in procedure. My delegation is beginning to make that shift and we look forward to working through the various problems that we will face in the future with our partners both in the Security Council and in the wider United Nations system.

Mr. Ben Mustapha (Tunisia)

At the outset, I wish to welcome you warmly, Sir, and to express our pleasure at seeing you personally preside over this important meeting of the Security Council, which your country recently joined. I wish to commend Ambassador Mahbubani and his team, who have skilfully and competently guided the work of the Council since the beginning of this month.

I also wish to congratulate your country for choosing the issue of strengthening cooperation with troop-contributing countries for our debate today. This is an issue which has assumed increasing importance recently in the light of the various reports on peacekeeping operations that were issued last year and that have elicited great interest within the United Nations, the most recent of which was the Brahimi report. These reports unleashed a certain momentum to improve United Nations peacekeeping operations. Strengthening consultations and cooperation with troop-contributing countries is among the required tools for attaining that objective.

The document you have offered us in connection with this debate, for which we thank you, places the issue of strengthening cooperation with troop-contributing countries in its historical context, identifies areas for such cooperation and suggests specific points on which our debate might focus today. Participation in this debate by States that are not Security Council members and that contribute troops is significant.

Tunisia is a troop-contributing country and, since the 1960s, has participated in several United Nations peacekeeping operations in various regions of the world. We share many of the views and ideas expressed this morning by troop-contributing countries.

Troop-contributing countries play an essential role in the implementation on the ground of the mandates of peacekeeping operations created by the Security Council. Their soldiers have been increasingly called upon to fulfil complex and dangerous mandates. Thus, the Security Council's decisions in this area have consequences for those countries, most of which are not members of the Council and hence not involved in drafting the mandates assigned to their contingents.

Experience has shown that the absence of consultations and cooperation with troop-contributing countries can create serious difficulties, and even embarrassing situations, in the implementation of mandates, as was clearly described this morning by the representatives of troop-contributing countries. Those countries have continuously called for significant improvements in the consultation process. The recent tribulations of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone have been frequently cited as an example of situations that may arise from the absence of cooperation and consultation with troop-contributing countries.

The debate of recent months within the United Nations on peacekeeping operations has made us even more aware of the urgent need significantly to strengthen consultation and cooperation between troop-contributing countries, the Security Council and the Secretariat. The Brahimi report stressed the value of institutionalizing such consultations. In his report on implementing the Brahimi report, the Secretary-General fully agreed with the view of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations on the need to strengthen consultations between troop-contributing countries and the Security Council, inter alia, through new procedures and mechanisms. Tunisia fully supports that recommendation and, during negotiations in the Council on resolution 1327 (2000) on the recommendations of the Brahimi report, advocated the Council's endorsement of the institutionalization of consultations with troop-contributing countries and the convening of meetings with them at their request. In its decision, however, the Council did not go so far as to institutionalize consultations.

Nevertheless, we welcome the compromise arrived at by the members of the Council, which we consider to be a first step in the right direction. The General Assembly, for its part, supported strengthening consultations and we feel that the time has now come to implement these decisions.

In accordance with resolution 1327 (2000), the Security Council must hold private meetings with troop-contributing countries, including at their request, before drafting a mission mandate and throughout its implementation. We see such meetings as ad hoc meetings in which there is genuine dialogue among Council members, troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat on a given peacekeeping operation so that information and views can be exchanged before the Council takes any decision on the operation and its mandate. At these meetings, the Secretariat would inform the Security Council and the troop-contributing countries of the mission's scope and any potential risks. Such meetings could address the question of the security and safety of personnel, an issue that was stressed by several speakers this morning. In this way, troop-contributing countries will be able to assess the situation and their views will be taken into account.

We see this format as a first step that could be followed by other, larger steps. The Permanent Representative of Jordan suggested this morning that, a year from now, the Security Council hold another debate on strengthening consultations with troop-contributing countries and we support that suggestion. A second debate could provide us with an opportunity to assess the implementation and value of the format agreed on by the Council.

Moreover, the holding by the Secretariat of regular informational meetings for troop-contributing countries and the conveying of timely, relevant and comprehensive information regarding personnel on the ground will make it possible for those countries to follow the development of a peacekeeping operation at every stage.

The Security Council should continue to hold meetings with troop-contributing countries before the departure of a Council mission so as to consult with them about the objective of the mission. A second meeting should be devoted to dealing with the results of the mission. Last year, the Council held public meetings to discuss the results of some of its missions. The participation of troop-contributing countries and other Member States of the Organization at such meetings provides for greater transparency in the Council's work and also serves to broaden and take into account the views of other States Members of the United Nations.

It would be useful for the Security Council, troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat to hold an assessment meeting at the conclusion of a peacekeeping operation to draw lessons from the operation and to identify the strong points and the lacunae in its management, which will help to better prepare future operations.

I would also like to stress the importance of consultations between the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries in the preparation of guidelines for peacekeeping personnel. Such consultations can help ensure the effective implementation of approved guidelines.

Meaningful dialogue and cooperation at all stages of a mission will make it possible for all parties concerned to take their decisions with full knowledge of a given situation, strengthen mutual trust and encourage Member States to contribute more to peacekeeping operations. This is a matter of developing a true partnership that can ensure the success of peacekeeping operations.

These are some of the issues that could be dealt with in consultations with troop-contributing countries. But there may also be other consultations held in different formats according to how things develop in the future.

In addition to the principles that have always guided them, to succeed, peacekeeping operations must count on several elements. Those include clear mandates, adequate resources, consultation, and cooperation and coordination at all levels. Today's debate will certainly contribute to finding ways to give new impetus to cooperation among troop-contributing countries, the Security Council and the Secretariat.

Miss Durrant (Jamaica)

Allow me to welcome you most warmly, Mr. Minister, on behalf of the Government and people of Jamaica. My delegation is confident that under your guidance this debate will prove extremely useful in helping the United Nations and its Member States to address the increasing complexities of peacekeeping operations. My delegation congratulates you and the Singapore delegation for your foresight in scheduling this meeting.

Mr. President, your delegation's paper on strengthening cooperation with troop-contributing countries has served to focus our discussion. It underscored the fact that troop-contributing countries are perhaps the most indispensable element of any peacekeeping operation and that the relationship between troop-contributing countries, the Security Council and the Secretariat is of paramount importance. As was indicated in your delegation's paper, the main purpose of this open debate is to provide all participants in United Nations peacekeeping with an opportunity to reflect on recent experiences, with a view to distilling some lessons that can be learned.

We have had an opportunity to listen to the concerns and the recommendations of some of the troop-contributing countries. My delegation thanks them for sharing their experiences and for contributing constructive and useful suggestions. Indeed, Jamaica fully supports any initiative in the Security Council that is aimed at improving the process of consultations between the Security Council and troop-contributing countries. My delegation's contribution in the examination of the Brahimi report and our subsequent support for the adoption of the working group's recommendations on consultations with troop-contributing countries aptly demonstrate our commitment to this undertaking. The Council's debate last November under the presidency of the Netherlands on issues related to peacekeeping exit strategies was a further illustration of the seriousness with which the Security Council views all matters related to United Nations peacekeeping operations.

The working group on the Brahimi report examined mechanisms and procedures for strengthening consultations with both current and potential troop-contributing countries. It also considered how that might be done before and after the establishment of a peacekeeping mission, particularly on matters affecting the safety and security of personnel and the implications for a mission's use of force. As a result of that examination, the working group made certain specific recommendations to the Security Council.

By adopting resolution 1327 (2000) on 13 November 2000, and by approving thereby the annexed decisions and recommendations, the Council has in fact embraced a new doctrine on peacekeeping operations. That new doctrine sets specific, unambiguous goals for United Nations peacekeeping. In that new doctrine the Council's relationship and the level of consultations with troop-contributing countries are given full and unqualified attention.

The decisions set out in the annex to resolution 1327 (2000) are very clear as to the Council's objectives relating specifically to troop-contributing countries. They include the importance of an improved system of consultations among troop-contributing countries, the Secretariat and the Security Council. The stated purpose is to foster a common understanding of the situation on the ground to which peacekeepers are sent, and that all concerned are cognizant of the mission's mandate and the requirements for its implementation.

Most importantly, the Council agreed to strengthen significantly the existing system of consultations through the holding of private meetings with troop-contributing countries in a form and with a content conducive to making such meetings more interactive and productive. In that regard, a number of troop-contributing countries have made important recommendations during the course of this debate on how best to achieve optimum results. Their recommendations merit our serious consideration.

Also of significance is the fact that under its new doctrine, troop-contributing countries may initiate those meetings with the Security Council. Furthermore, after being identified by the Secretary-General, potential troop contributors may also request a meeting with the Security Council in the case of a new or ongoing peacekeeping operation, during the implementation phase of an operation, and when the Council is considering a change in, or renewal or completion of, a peacekeeping mandate. The process of consultation must be ongoing and must provide troop-contributing countries with the option to initiate such meetings, even if meetings are not contemplated by the Security Council. Most importantly, a troop contributor must have the opportunity to seek such a meeting with the Council when a rapid deterioration in the situation on the ground threatens the safety and security of its troops.

By resolving to give peacekeeping operations clear, credible and achievable mandates, the Security Council has committed itself to removing all doubts as to what is expected of troop contributors before their personnel are deployed. When clearly understood, each mandate must pre-determines the level of training and equipment required for a peacekeeping operation. When time is of the essence, there is also an obligation for those countries participating in the standby arrangements whose troops are adequately trained and equipped to be ready to respond at short notice when needed for peacekeeping operations. The success or failure of a peacekeeping operation could be determined by the speed with which peacekeepers are deployed.

The Security Council's relationship with troop-contributing countries extends beyond ensuring that we do it right when going in. We have debated the imperatives for an appropriate exit strategy for each mission, and, with the United Nations embarking on increasingly complex peacekeeping missions, the role of peacekeepers has taken on new dimensions. Bearing in mind that the transition from peacekeeping to peace-building is a process and not an event, let us note that peacekeepers are uniquely placed to ensure that this process takes place in a secured environment.

As the Permanent Representative of Japan emphasized to us this morning, many of these missions involve large civilian components, and we agree that it is crucial for the Council to listen to those countries that make contributions of civilians, logistics and equipment. This was taken up in S/PRST/1996/13. We need to ensure that it is fully implemented.

The Security Council, by adopting resolution 1327 (2000), has clearly stated its intentions with respect to troop-contributing countries and the process of consultations during all phases of a peace operation. It is, however, of far more importance that the actions taken or contemplated by the Council give effect to this new doctrine. The Security Council has already acted to improve the level of consultations. Recent meetings between the Council and troop-contributing countries have afforded a greater exchange of views than has been the case in the recent past. Currently, the Security Council is considering the establishment of a committee on peacekeeping operations, to deal specifically with areas of peacekeeping falling within the jurisdiction of the Security Council. The President of the Council, in his wisdom, has asked troop-contributing countries for their comments on this initiative during the course of this debate. My delegation has listened carefully to the comments made here today, and this will assist us in developing the terms of reference for the peacekeeping committee, to ensure its effectiveness in improving the work of the Security Council.

My delegation fully supports the establishment of mechanisms and procedures within the Council which will enhance its ability to carry out peacekeeping operations, including consultations with troop-contributing countries. We must work, collectively and individually, to make the process work better.

Jamaica is determined that the lessons of the past must teach us the way of the future. Without seeking to ascribe responsibility for failures or give credit for successes, we are fully committed to playing our part in helping the United Nations avoid repeating the mistakes of the past while preparing ourselves for future peacekeeping operations based on a cooperative relationship between the Security Council, troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat. We must put our words into action.

Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe9' in position 914: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg008-bk01-pa01">It is an honour for us...d should guide us through our future actions.</p>', 914, 915, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 915
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg008-bk01-pa01">It is an honour for us...d should guide us through our future actions.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 914